Visually, vision of the moon is blocked by the horizon. Physically, it is not blocked. As I said, get an optical zoom device, and you can increase you vision range.
In your mind, what is the difference between visually blocking vs physically blocking? How can you simultaneously belive that there exists an uninterrupted line of sight that light can take, but also that something blocks it along that path? That's what you're saying when you tell me that the horizon blocks it: that the light that would have otherwise reached your eyes was blocked by the horizon AKA the ground far away. It's either a clear line of sight or it isn't. It can't be both at the same time.
From your perspective, it is not a clear line of sight.
An object far enough away gets visually blocked due to how perspective works. Once the horizon has risen to eye level, that is the extent of the range of what you can see, at eye level.
I made this drawing for you to show how your vision gets physically blocked.
From your perspective, it is not a clear line of sight
For that to be the case, something must be blocking it. If there is no physical object blocking your line of sight, then it is a clear line of sight. "Horizon" and "perspective" aren't some magical concepts that allow you to sidestep the laws of physics.
An object far enough away gets visually blocked due to how perspective works
Yes that's how it works on a curved surface, where the ground itself does in fact "rise" to block your view. On a flat surface, that doesn't work. On a flat surface, parallel lines stay parallel. I'm talking about REAL parallel lines here, not your subjective interpretation of what a parallel line is. In your drawing, the lines only intersect because you drew them that way, i.e. NOT PARALLEL.
You seem to think that framing every contentious point through the eyes of a human observer gives you leeway to ignore mathematical realities. As though they can be violated just because your personal perspective disobeys them. This is akin to a baby who thinks he can't be seen by his parents when he covers his eyes. Take the observer out of your analysis and suddenly your model begins to show some very glaring inconsistencies with reality.
There is no difference between visually vs physically blocking. It's the same thing. Take the laser beam and replace it with a taut rope. A rope forming a straight lone from the top of everest to the moon. Explain how that rope can remain a straight line when the moon dips below the horizon. Forget your perspective, there is no observer here. Just a rope.
Once the rope reaches your visual horizon, you will not see the rope extend beyond that point, as it has converged with the ground rising to your eye level. If you leave your perspective, and say move upward in height, you can seek the rope extend even further. This is all in orders with the flat earth model.
Reply limit reached, so I guess I answer here.
Visually, vision of the moon is blocked by the horizon. Physically, it is not blocked. As I said, get an optical zoom device, and you can increase you vision range.
In your mind, what is the difference between visually blocking vs physically blocking? How can you simultaneously belive that there exists an uninterrupted line of sight that light can take, but also that something blocks it along that path? That's what you're saying when you tell me that the horizon blocks it: that the light that would have otherwise reached your eyes was blocked by the horizon AKA the ground far away. It's either a clear line of sight or it isn't. It can't be both at the same time.
From your perspective, it is not a clear line of sight.
An object far enough away gets visually blocked due to how perspective works. Once the horizon has risen to eye level, that is the extent of the range of what you can see, at eye level.
I made this drawing for you to show how your vision gets physically blocked.
https://ibb.co/mhyv2Jt
For that to be the case, something must be blocking it. If there is no physical object blocking your line of sight, then it is a clear line of sight. "Horizon" and "perspective" aren't some magical concepts that allow you to sidestep the laws of physics.
Yes that's how it works on a curved surface, where the ground itself does in fact "rise" to block your view. On a flat surface, that doesn't work. On a flat surface, parallel lines stay parallel. I'm talking about REAL parallel lines here, not your subjective interpretation of what a parallel line is. In your drawing, the lines only intersect because you drew them that way, i.e. NOT PARALLEL.
You seem to think that framing every contentious point through the eyes of a human observer gives you leeway to ignore mathematical realities. As though they can be violated just because your personal perspective disobeys them. This is akin to a baby who thinks he can't be seen by his parents when he covers his eyes. Take the observer out of your analysis and suddenly your model begins to show some very glaring inconsistencies with reality.
There is no difference between visually vs physically blocking. It's the same thing. Take the laser beam and replace it with a taut rope. A rope forming a straight lone from the top of everest to the moon. Explain how that rope can remain a straight line when the moon dips below the horizon. Forget your perspective, there is no observer here. Just a rope.
Once the rope reaches your visual horizon, you will not see the rope extend beyond that point, as it has converged with the ground rising to your eye level. If you leave your perspective, and say move upward in height, you can seek the rope extend even further. This is all in orders with the flat earth model.